Expanding Use of cfDNA Screening in Pregnancy: Current and Emerging Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues
Purpose of Review
In 2011, screening platforms became available in the US that detect and analyze fragments of cell-free placental DNA (cfDNA) in maternal blood serum. Marketed as noninvasive prenatal tests (NIPT), cfDNA screening is more accurate than previously available serum screening tests for certain aneuploidies. The combination of a noninvasive procedure, high specificity and sensitivity, and lower false positive rates for some aneuploidies (most notably Down’s syndrome) has led to broad clinician and patient adoption. New ethical, legal, and social issues arise from the increased use and expanded implementation of cfDNA in pregnancy.
Recently, several professional associations have amended their guidelines on cfDNA, removing language recommending its use in only “high-risk” pregnancies in favor of making cfDNA screening an available option for women with “low-risk” pregnancies as well. At the same time, commercial cfDNA screening laboratories continue to expand the range of available test panels. As a result, the future of prenatal screening will likely include a broader range of genetic tests in a wider range of patients.
This article addresses the ethical, legal, and social issues related to the shift in guidance and expanded use of cfDNA in pregnant women, including concerns regarding routinized testing, an unmet and increasing demand for genetic counseling services, social and economic disparities in access, impact on groups living with disabling conditions, and provider liability.
KeywordscfDNA Prenatal screening NIPT Ethics Legal issues Social issues
This paper was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (Grant R00HG006452: Michie).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors each declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
- 2.Simpson JLS, Holzgreve W, Driscoll DA. Chapter 10: Genetic counseling and genetic screening. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JN, Simpson JLS, Landon ML, Galan HG, Jauniaux EJ, Driscoll DD, editors. Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2012b.Google Scholar
- 5.Simpson JLS, Richards D, Otaño L, Driscoll DA. Chapter 11: Prenatal genetic diagnosis. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JN, Simpson JLS, Landon ML, Galan HG, Jauniaux EJ, Driscoll DD, editors. Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2012c.Google Scholar
- 6.ACOG COmmittee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin: invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. 00006250-200712000-00050.pdf 2007; 88:1459–67.Google Scholar
- 9.• Bianchi D, Parker RL, Wentworth J, Madankumar R, Saffer C, Das AF, et al. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:799–808. Published online. Concludes that in a general obstetrical population, prenatal testing with the use of cfDNA had significantly lower false positive rates and higher positive predictive values for detection of trisomies 21 and 18 than standard screening CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics, The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Publications Committee. Committee Opinion number 545: noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000423819.85283.f4.Google Scholar
- 16.• Dondorp W, de Wert G, Bombard Y, Bianchi DW, Bergmann C, Borry P, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:1438–50. Joint European Society for Human Genetics and American Society for Human Genetics statement recommending a cautious expansion of the scope of prenatal screening to serious congenital and childhood disorders, and an active role of government in ensuring responsible innovation and use of NIPT in countries where prenatal screening is offered as a public health program CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.ACOG and SMFM. Ob-Gyns release revised recommendations on screening and testing for genetic disorders. Press Release 2016.Google Scholar
- 19.Gregg AR, Skotko BG, Benkendorf JL, Monaghan KG, Bajaj K, Best RG, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2016.Google Scholar
- 20.• Lefkowitz RB, Tynan JA, Liu T, Wu Y, Mazloom AR, Almasri E, et al. Clinical validation of a noninvasive prenatal test for genomewide detection of fetal copy number variants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:227. Demonstrates that in pregnancies at an increased risk for fetal chromosomal abnormalities, genomewide NIPT for fetal chromosomal abnormalities can provide high resolution, sensitive, and specific detection of a wide range of subchromosomal and whole chromosomal abnormalities that were previously only detectable by invasive karyotype analysis CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.• Verhoef TI, Hill M, Drury S, Mason S, Jenkins L, Morris S, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36:636–42. Evaluates the costs of offering non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders compared to traditional invasive testing; finds that NIPD may be less expensive than invasive testing for some disorders, but may be higher for others, suggesting increased uptake of NIPD will become a major contributing factor to the cost of a genetic service for prenatal diagnosis in clinical practice CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.• Mozersky J. Hoping someday never comes: deferring ethical thinking about noninvasive prenatal testing. AJOB Empirical Bioethics. 2015;6(1):31–41. Observational study highlights the ethical continuities between NIPT and other forms of prenatal screening and testing including deferring decision-making regarding test results; the continued expansion of screening to include more women and conditions will increase the number of women who receive positive results and may be shocked and unprepared as a result CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.• de Jong A, de Wert GM. Prenatal screening: an ethical agenda for the near future. Bioethics. 2015;29(1):46–55. Assesses the ethical justifications of prenatal screening, particularly as test capacities develop, with an emphasis on the extent they contribute to or undermine the stated aim of providing meaningful options for reproductive choice CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Lewis C, Silcock C, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome: pregnant women’s views and likely uptake. Public Health Genomics. 2013;20(11):1127–33.Google Scholar
- 30.• Press N, Browner CH. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(7):979–89. Observational study of prenatal clinical care and the routinization of earlier maternal-fetal serum screening technology found that in some cases meaningful informed consent was eroded by clinical routines that focused on the procedural (blood draw) rather than the substantive (information-gathering) nature of the screening technology CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Suter S. The routinization of prenatal testing. American Journal of Law & Medicine. 2002;28(2/3):233–70.Google Scholar
- 32.• Rapp R. Testing women, testing the fetus: the social impact of amniocentesis in America. Hove: Psychology Press; 1999ac .Seminal book examining the experiences of women to whom amniocentesis and other diagnostic procedures were first available details the process through with a technology initially used in high-risk pregnancy populations became a common aspect of American prenatal care Google Scholar
- 33.• Rothman BK. The tentative pregnancy: how amniocentesis changes the experience of motherhood. New York: Norton; 1993ad .Foundational book arguing that the routine use of amniocentesis and other diagnostic technologies in pregnancy shapes how women approach pregnancy and bond (or don’t) with their fetus and child; in some cases, women may find it hard to fully accept a pregnancy until testing demonstrates the fetus is ‘healthy’ Google Scholar
- 37.Gammon B, Allyse M. Decisional regret in women receiving high-risk or inconclusive results from non-invasive prenatal genetic screening. Prenat Diagn 2016;36(S1).Google Scholar
- 48.• Dervan AP, Deverka PA, Trosman JR, Weldon CB, Douglas MP, Phillips KA. Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests: insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening. Genet Med. 2016; doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.145. Evaluates the framework insurance payers use to make coverage decisions for cfDNA; establishes that 8 of 19 payers in the United States were covering cfDNA for average-risk pregnancies where clinical value and updated professional guidelines indicated PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.National Society of Genetic Counselors NSGC. 2014 Professional status survey: Available from: http://nsgc.org/p/cm/ld/fid=68. Accessed 29 Aug 2014.
- 53.Heger M. With rapid uptake of noninvasive prenatal screening many question its impact on abortion. Genomeweb 2016.Google Scholar
- 55.Daley B. When baby is due, genetic counselors seen downplaying false alarms. Boston Globe 2016.Google Scholar
- 59.• Parens E, Asch A. Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2003;9(1):40–7. Challenges the view that genetic testing is a self-evident good by arguing that with appropriate public support and accommodations, disabling traits need not be detrimental to leading a worthwhile life CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 61.• Bernhardt BA, Soucier D, Hanson K, Savage MS, Jackson L, Wapner RJ. Women’s experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genet Med. 2013;15:139–45. Qualitative study finding that for microarray testing it is often difficult for parents to grasp the meaning of results, and some results were very uncertain; extensive pretest and posttest counseling and educational tools required as the numbers of women undergoing such testing increase CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 80.• Steinbach RJ, Allyse M, Michie M, Liu EY, Cho MK. This lifetime commitment: public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic screening. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170(2):363–74. Survey study exploring the variety of views expressed about living with and raising a child with disabilities; most respondents supported the availability of genetic testing despite a range of both positive and negative views of living with disability CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 85.Minear M, Alessi S, Michie M, Allyse M, Chandrasakharan S. Where are we now with non-invasive prenatal testing?: a review of current and emerging ethical, legal, and social issues. Annu Rev Gen Genomics 2015; In Press.Google Scholar
- 86.Flessel M, Goldman S. California prenatal screening program to include noninvasive testing. Acog.org 2013;http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/District_Newsletters/District_IX/September_2013/California_Prenatal_Screening_Program.
- 87.Karow J. NIPT continues to take off in 2013 as indications, insurance coverage grow. GenomeWeb 2014Google Scholar
- 88.Karow J. NIPT insurance coverage for all risk groups expected to pick up after new guidelines, cost studies. Genomeweb 2015.Google Scholar
- 91.• Chitty L, Cameron L, Daley D, Fisher J, Hill M, Jenkins L, et al. RAPID non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) evaluation study: a report for the UK national screening committee. 2015. Results of this study support the addition of NIPT as a contingent test in the United Kingdom’s National Health Services Down’s syndrome screening pathway . Google Scholar
- 97.Markens S. ‘I’m not sure if they speak to everyone about this option’: analyzing disparate access to and use of genetic health services in the US from the perspective of genetic counselors. Critical Public Health. 2016;16:1–14.Google Scholar
- 98.• Bryant AS, Worjoloh A, Caughey AB, Washington AE. Racial/ethnic disparities in obstetric outcomes and care: prevalence and determinants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(4):335–43. Examines the variety of factors that lead to disparate health outcomes in obstetric care based on racial and ethnic differences and suggests root causes and potential interventions to improve outcomes CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 99.• Agarwal A, Sayres LC, Cho MK, Cook-Deegan R, Chandrasekharan S. Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(6):521–31. Provides an overview of the patent and intellectual property claims at issue in the cfDNA market CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 100.UPDATE: Appeals court upholds invalidity of sequenom patent | genomeweb; Available from: https://www.genomeweb.com/business-news/update-appeals-court-upholds-invalidity-sequenom-patent. Accessed 27 Oct 2016.
- 101.FDA to finalize LDT guidance amid uncertainty on number of genetic tests impacted | genomeweb; Available from: https://www.genomeweb.com/molecular-diagnostics/fda-finalize-ldt-guidance-amid-uncertainty-number-genetic-tests-impacted. Accessed 28 Oct 2016.
- 102.Collins L, Ewing F, Fernandes, JS, Lin J, Wu LX. Laboratory developed tests emerging in FDA Regulation. The National Law Review 2016. Available at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/laboratory-developed-tests-emerging-fda-regulation. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.
- 104.Abortion bans in cases of sex or race selection or genetic anomaly | Guttmacher Institute: Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-bans-cases-sex-or-race-selection-or-genetic-anomaly. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.
- 106.Kelly N. Indiana journal gazette; Available from: http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/indiana/Judge-strikes-down-Indiana-abortion-law-13867401. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.
- 110.Prenatal assessment of genomes and exomes (PAGE) | Sanger institute; Available from: http://www.sanger.ac.uk/science/collaboration/prenatal-assessment-genomes-and-exomes-page. Accessed 14 Nov 2016.
- 112.Hudecova I, Chiu RW. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of thalassemias using maternal plasma cell free DNA. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2016.Google Scholar
- 113.Christianson A, Howson CP, Modell B. March of dimes: global report on birth defects, the hidden toll of dying and disabled children. 2005.Google Scholar
- 118.Kittay EF, Kittay L. On the expressivity and ethics of selective abortion for disability: conversations with my son. Prenatal testing and disability rights 2000:165–95.Google Scholar
- 120.Steinbach RJ, Allyse M, Michie M, Liu EY, Cho MK. “This lifetime commitment”: public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic screening. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2015; 170(2).Google Scholar